if they are trying to grow the economy they are very certainly not very good at it don't you think. 3 years plus and this is what we got? larry summers and the boys - the smart guys don't seem very smart. lots of very simple ideas that would solve our problems - we know how to do it (remember ww2?) but somehow the rulers don't seem to be able to figure it out. - here is a revolutionary, and spot-on, idea from economist James Galbraith: "ACTUALLY, THE RETIREMENT AGE IS TOO HIGH".

The most dangerous conventional wisdom in the world today is the idea that with an older population, people must work longer and retire with less.

This idea is being used to rationalize cuts in old-age benefits in numerous advanced countries -- most recently in France, and soon in the United States. The cuts are disguised as increases in the minimum retirement age or as increases in the age at which full pensions will be paid.

Such cuts have a perversely powerful logic: "We" are living longer. There are fewer workers to support each elderly person. Therefore "we" should work longer.

But in the first place, "we" are not living longer. Wealthier elderly are; the non-wealthy not so much. Raising the retirement age cuts benefits for those who can't wait to retire and who often won't live long. Meanwhile, richer people with soft jobs work on: For them, it's an easy call.

Second, many workers retire because they can't find jobs. They're unemployed -- or expect to become so. Extending the retirement age for them just means a longer job search, a futile waste of time and effort.

Third, we don't need the workers. Productivity gains and cheap imports mean that we can and do enjoy far more farm and factory goods than our forebears, with much less effort. Only a small fraction of today's workers make things. Our problem is finding worthwhile work for people to do, not finding workers to produce the goods we consume.

He goes on to argue that the Great Recession has left us with a jobs deficit of about 11 million--11 million workers looking for a job that just isn't there. "So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?"

As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work?

A huge percentage of the long-term unemployed are older workers, and we're seeing the highest unemployment rate for over-55s since 1948. Letting these people fall through the safety net, as many of them are, having exhausted all unemployment benefits, is far greater problem in the long-range for the nation than expanding Social Security to them.

How do you pay for it? There are actually some pretty straight-forward solutions, should Democrats have the will to push for them. End the payroll tax cut. Raise the payroll tax cap so that income over $106,000 is subject to payroll taxes. Here's a magic bullet: comprehensive immigration reform that brings millions of undocumented workers into the system, securing Social Security's future for decades to come.

But in the meantime, Galbraith has the right idea, though the chances of it's simple wisdom being recognized by the powers that be seem exactly nil. Digby:

In a modern, civilized world in which people were trying to find economic answers to the problem of how to deal in a humane way with an aging population in a time of economic transition, Galbraith's prescription would at least be part of the discussion. Unfortunately, we are not in a civilized world -- we are in some weird Randian/Calvinist era in which our leaders seem to have confused economics with moralism and have decided that the average folk have had it too good for too long.

"if they are trying to grow the economy they are very certainly not very good at it don't you think. 3 years plus and this is what we got?"

The one that is trying to wreck the economy has a majority in the House and filibuster in the Senate. It is like two guys in a boat rowing opposite directions. So "trying" is the operative word.

The one hollering the loudest about the deficit would gladly raise it with tax cuts for the rich. And just as gladly fire many more government employees. They would not extend unemployment without tax cuts for the rich. First time in the history of recessions to throw people off unemployment before the recession was over. They would raise retirement age gladly. They are voting today to kill the healthcare bill for the 31st time when everyone knows they are just wasting your money.

The only jobs program they would go for is invading Iran. Which would drive up the price of oil. They like that. That and drilling for oil and fracking in your back yard, But not theirs. Oh, and they consider tax cuts for the rich as a jobs program and curall for the deficit and anything else that ails you.

They would gladly roll back all workers rights and civil rights. Especially suffrage. All the way back to only white men that own land.

They would kill all three letter government agencies except for the DOT strangely enough. Not sure why they don't hate on the DOT.

They would do away with free schooling. They would gladly put all poor people in privatized prisons and rent out the slave labor to corporations. That keeps them from voting, too.

i don't disagree with any of that but if you look at the first years of the administration they blew it. first by putting in place those that caused the crisis and those that never saw it coming. the people who saw it and knew how to fix it were shut out! read suskind's book. it is very obvious and simple what should be done - i would give obama credit if he tried and failed but he is still a wimp on the issue - can it be because wall street still pays the piper? any talk about helping the middle class and getting things working again is just that - talk - to get elected then it will be more of the same. if you would like i will admit that he is better than romney - but not enough for me! i would vote for ike today - "Dwight Eisenhower kept in place the high Korean War tax rates throughout his presidency, which is partly why the national debt fell from 74.3% of gross domestic product to 56% on his watch. Most Republicans in the House of

I agree but I will be voting against the greater evil. Just like the TP think they are doing. They are not dumb enough to talk about the lesser of two evils, though. Even they know that is counter productive to their goals.

it is easier for me - living in nj - obama will win the state without my vote. tea party has been taken over - i think many of the original tea partiers were against the bank bailouts etc and would be on board with ows to some extent

But not the people they elected. They have become huge fans of the big banks.
In Arkansas voting for Obama is a protest vote. ;p But we still have some of the old habits of voting for Democrats on the lower levels. But 2010 was a nightmare. My current Rep is a Karl Rove buddy. Famous for illegal caging. Part of the US Attorney scandal. And the lady he beat I would vote for fro President. Ex English teacher. Great lady. But black. ;p
The big money found a black guy to primary her. But the money did not win. State Senate race this time. I really wanted her to run for the house again . And beat that asshole Tim Griffin!

yea, our system is fubar - what a shame - we could take it back but doesn't look like it. too many people buy the propaganda- how is it being an ows guy in little rock? nj is bad enough - the south makes me nervous!

Could that be because it is the 99% who are the ones who are "STRUGGLING" to survive in this repugnacan (trademarked) induced, created and sustained economic disaster we all suffer today. A Fireman can put out the fire and rescue the victims, but not if someone keeps shutting off the water and then groups together to block him from entering the house to save the victim. For those unaware, that was an analogy. President Obama can't fix the economy if he is blocked and obstructed in everything he does. The saddest part is, is that most Americans are rape victims who are listening to their rapist's story that he had to do it because he was trying to save the victim from being raped. Any American stupid enough not to research the truth behind "ANY" statement made by "ANY" politician, deserves the consequences that accrue as a result of taking said politicians word alone. Any moron can cast a vote, but if they cast that vote ignorant of the truth and "FACTS", then they are not only a moron, they are criminally irresponsible. Voters obligations are the same as jury duty, you are supposed to get to the TRUTH and then vote to apply the correct decision that benefits and protects SOCIETY as a WHOLE. The simplest question I have for Mitt Romney is..."What can you possibly say to me that will dissuade me from believing that the only reason you want the power of the Office of the President of the United States is to use that power to craft a tax structure, regulatory structure and governmental infrastructure that would solely benefit you and your investors (the 1% and Corporations) with policies solely geared to exponentially increase yours and their wealth. After all, that was exactly what you did at Bain Capital. Ship out jobs, fire people, destroy benefits and pensions, and put companies into bankruptcy, while you and your investors walked away with all the money. How can you possibly convince me that you would NOT apply "that Business" experience in the Oval Office. My Healthcare is not a competition. My living standard is not supposed to be predicated on HOW much more money YOU make." These are the types of questions responsible and civic minded Americans should be asking. But sadly, Americans are lazy, and will accept any lie so long as the lie promises them something they want. Of course when they don't get it, they tend to blame the wrong person. Find the Truth, Use the Truth, Apply the Truth. Anyone incapable of seeing just who is holding the nation hostage, and then votes for the hostage takers yet again, are as guilty of the crime as the hostage takers. Under the Law, it is called Aiding and Abetting. Wake up America, you don't have much time left to find the truth and be able to use it, because the repugnacans are working overtime to ensure that the vast majority of Americans no longer have a voice of representation in the policies of our nation. Why do you think so many disproportionately African and Latino Americans are being charged with bogus crimes and incarcerations. What do you lose when you are done like that.... Good Guess! That's right, Your Constitutional rights...Voting just being one of those rights. Any Moron who votes for Romney, Votes to enslave themselves to the New American Aristocracy. Or as it was called in the old days, White Supremacy. KKK. Nazi Purity. GOP(Gestapo Only Party). Anyone who fails to learn the history of America and the world, is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, which risks not only their lives, but mine as well. Learn America... You don't have much time left.

you got one right the 1% laugh as we tear down Obama and make their lives easier, fighting amoung ourselves, but that doesn't stop you from jumping in to "fight" if saying nothing expect throw your vote so the GOP can wi9n is "fighting" you never address the fact that we would not even be in Iraq if the GOP weren't there to cast votes.

In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". The resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion.

In a January 2003 CBS poll 64% of U.S. nationals had approved of military action against Iraq, however 63% wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war.

It's reminiscent of the patriotic zeal of the right wingers to defend America against any and all criticism, only apply this overzealous patriotism to the the Democratic Party Flag, and you get bensdad. Kind of funny when you think of it that way.

I'm sure we've been over this, as we expose what tools of the 1% the GOP is and as it dies it's natural death, too long in coming, we at the same time put pressure in the primaries to hold the Ds to what they claim to be, sure there will be resistance but in place by place, as it is already happening in the far northeast, where Sanders will soon be joined by King, the GOP becomes so weak they cannot step in when the D is weak, as this happens we get more Bernie’s and that is good.

I've been through people explaining patriotism to me, you know, and I am still not convinced with the blind loyalty. To me, Democratic Party borders are just more borders that separate people instead of uniting.

Is it wrong to question authority? Is it wrong to think independently of a political party? I'm not blind to what the republicans are doing, but neither am I blind to what the democrats are doing. I will not support either party unless they change their ways and stop taking bribes from corporations and special interests. I will not support either party president, both support negotiating global trades agreements in secret and keeping the public in the dark. Secrecy is the beginning stage of tyranny.

What gives the parties an incentive to change? If the parties lose no supporters, what incentive will either party have to change - the answer is none.

Your strategy appears to be to simply support the status quo. I find your plan lacking tactical awareness. I would agree with the strategy to vote for Obama in swing states. Since we have an electoral system, some votes are more crucial than others.

You are clearly being a deceitful supporter of the Republican Party and the 1%. Many people did not vote for Al Gore for exactly the reasons you say and that secured the White House for Bush, you want to see a repeat of that, people who care about getting the money out refusing to vote for anybody who takes money under today's system just lets those who want money to control everything make all the decisions, given how much the things you say support that objective (electing Republicans, it is unreasonable to believe anything other than you are here to help elect Republicans. Your greatest fear is that we will elect enough Democrats to actually get public funding for elections, something the Ds are overwhelming for and the Republicans are overwhelming against.

For clarity's sake, grade the democrat party for me? What do you give them, an A+. And grade the republican party for me. Give me your supporting reasons based on their track records on providing meaningful reforms. Don't use fear of what the other guys will do to persuade me, it is nothing but fear mongering. Use actual facts and name reforms the parties have actually enacted to make a better, healthier society. Not just what they supported, but what they actually accomplished. Politicians lie every day, and you are an idiot if you think people care what they say they support. We care what they actually DO.

and I have carefully elvaluated your aurgment that nither Romney nor Obama will win the presidency and will post accordingly, if only you would as well maybe we could get this done once and for all instead of spinning our wheels

Yeah, David Kay Johnston has a story about the AMT, Alerternate Minimum Tax. It started as a way to get the big wage earners/high income people to pay some tax (a minimum at least). I guess at the last minute the bill was changed, over-turned the numbers or whatever. So that the AMT didn't apply to the high income people at all and the AMT targeted the 99%.

That is what happens when money talks. The whole intent of the law was reversed and forgotten.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, is putting the national election spotlight back on his home state. PoliticsPA.com quoted Turzai when he said a new voter ID law in Pennsylvania could help Mitt Romney win the state.
This will effect over 700,000 voters in Pennsylvania – mostly senior, minorities, and students.
Turzai listed the Castle Doctrine law, pro-life regulations and a new voter ID law as items Republicans have passed in Pennsylvania. The House Majority Leader then said the voter ID law "is gonna allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
The law goes into effect in the general election. All voters must show a photo ID at the polls before they are allowed to vote.
The New York Times reports some colleges and universities in Pennsylvania will have to make changes to student IDs to allow some students to vote. Democrats allege the changes would make it harder for younger voters and minorities to cast ballots.
Mark Nicastre told PoliticsPA.com claims the state's GOP agenda "simply helps their donors and political allies. ... Democrats are focused on protecting Pennsylvanians' right to vote."
Turzai alleges voter fraud has occurred in Pennsylvania in the past. Turzai spokesman Stephen Miskin also told PoliticsPA.com "the Republican presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to voter ID."